BJJ coach and self defense teacher Lloyd Irvin speaks the truth.

I'll just leave this here. Current BJJ teacher and self defense martial artist talks about some martial arts bullshido and tells about his home invasion with two gunman ( well kind of, he doesn't spill all the detail ).

Yes, martial arts are designed for specific things. But they aren't all good at it. Wing Chun is designed for punching people in the face, but it's inferior to boxing. People tend to make the excuse that WC just doesn't work in a sport environment but it works in the street - we all know this is bullshit. It just doesn't work very well at all.

This is because it wasn't actually designed principally for punching people, it was designed to a certain aesthetic. Techniques were selected for aesthetics, not efficacy. That's what happens when you don't actually test techniques by fighting or sparring. Every martial art develops through a process of "natural selection", so if your style developed under the selective pressure of what amounts to dance routines, guess what: it probably sucks as a martial art.

I don't believe there is any evidence that people were training karate to kick people off horses. In fact, seems like high kicks weren't part of karate back then. More of a modern add-on.

It's true that BJJ isn't the ultimate martial art, but no one is claiming that except maybe the Gracies. It's obvious that to be competitive in modern MMA, you have to train in multiple styles. BJJ happens to be one of the styles most frequently included. It's an excellent option for unarmed ground fighting.

But his argument seems to be that all martial arts are valid, but BJJ only works in the "cage" or when people make a circle and allow the fight to last an hour. That's bullshit.

He talks about how long BJJ fights can go for, and that this does not apply to reality. This is a straw man IMO. When two fighters are equally matched, yes it can go on for a long period of time. Same thing happens in every martial sport, not just BJJ. Two fighters of the same level can box for 30 minutes and no one actually gets finished, so it has to go to a judges decision. How come no one talks about that? Why is it always BJJ which is brought up?

Yet when you see these high level competitors fight someone who is untrained in the street, it's over FAST. So the time length argument is bullshit too.

If you expect BJJ to deal effectively with weapons, then you just have unreasonable expectations. I'd like to know who the **** actually thinks they're prepared to deal with waking up to a gun in the face after training BJJ.

His psychology stuff is spot on, I agree that you must train for specific situations, and that you shouldn't expect something designed for a specific purpose to work in every other situation.

When he was talking about the 30 minute thing, I don't believe he was referring to bjj. I think he was referring more so to sport fighting in general, that will sometimes last up to 30 minutes long, and was simply saying that a fight does not last that long. I think He was trying to get at that you won't really have all the time in the world to calculate like a boxer or wrestle around on the ground for too long in combat. In that case, i think he was referring more to the psychology thing again. Look at the security guard vs thug video for example. He was clearly still in sport or sparring mode...because that thug didn't seem to have a scratch on him.

But I agree on the bjj thing. Sure bjj may not be so great in a situation where there are multiple attackers, or where there are weapons involved like he said ( then again, very few martial arts have a focus on that ), but he forgot that many fights do happen between only 2 people. People don't just "circle up and let them fight" they just aren't involved in the fight in the first place. I've seen plenty where no one jumped in. BJJ can be used for self defense, and can be damn good at it, but I think he was just saying it was created for one on one combat, so where he lives it wouldn't work, because people jump in all the time.

As for the wing chun thing...yeah you're pretty much right on all accounts. I used to have a friend that took wing chun back when I only took tkd 2 years ago...and I could mop the floor with him, and I would not have even called myself decent then. It had zero fight application besides punching fast. But in that case, Mr. Irvin would probably argue that you could still learn a lot of stuff from it, like straight blasts, trapping, and chasing the center line.

When he was talking about the 30 minute thing, I don't believe he was referring to bjj. I think he was referring more so to sport fighting in general, that will sometimes last up to 30 minutes long, and was simply saying that a fight does not last that long. I think He was trying to get at that you won't really have all the time in the world to calculate like a boxer or wrestle around on the ground for too long in combat. In that case, i think he was referring more to the psychology thing again. Look at the security guard vs thug video for example. He was clearly still in sport or sparring mode...because that thug didn't seem to have a scratch on him.

That guard wanted to end the fight ASAP, he just couldn't get it done. Sometimes it can take a while to put someone away. That's reality too.

I've put people to sleep in the street within about 20-30 seconds of the fight starting. Haymaker was thrown, I ducked and got the takedown, took the back and nighty-night, then I got up.

But the fastest fight I've ever had was in a BJJ comp, I got the submission in around 10-12 seconds.

It all depends on a lot of factors. The element of surprise is a big one, and part of the reason combat sports can take so long. Guess what happens when an MMA fighter sucker punches another MMA fighter?

Same result whether they're in the ring or in the street.

Originally Posted by Urbanassassin

But I agree on the bjj thing. Sure bjj may not be so great in a situation where there are multiple attackers

Unless you're regularly sparring/fighting multiples, you're not going to be so great at it. That covers the vast majority of martial artists, regardless of what they claim. As many people have said on this site, if you can't even fight well against one person, you sure as hell aren't going to do so well against multiples.

Originally Posted by Urbanassassin

or where there are weapons involved like he said ( then again, very few martial arts have a focus on that )

That's right, very few people are really training to deal with weapons. A lot of people are training to dance.

Originally Posted by Urbanassassin

but he forgot that many fights do happen between only 2 people. People don't just "circle up and let them fight" they just aren't involved in the fight in the first place. I've seen plenty where no one jumped in. BJJ can be used for self defense, and can be damn good at it, but I think he was just saying it was created for one on one combat, so where he lives it wouldn't work, because people jump in all the time.

Mostly agree there. I recently wrote an article which covers my thoughts on that:

*Barf* Another multiples comment. As was just said, if you can't fight ONE it is even harder to fight MANY.

Its funny because chain punching is in boxing, trapping is in boxing, chasing the center-line is in boxing. Hell, I'd argue chi-sao is an early precursor to the speed and double ended bag drills. Of course, that's if you believe it is older than boxing.

*Barf* Another multiples comment. As was just said, if you can't fight ONE it is even harder to fight MANY.

Its funny because chain punching is in boxing, trapping is in boxing, chasing the center-line is in boxing. Hell, I'd argue chi-sao is an early precursor to the speed and double ended bag drills. Of course, that's if you believe it is older than boxing.

Who would actually believe wing chun is older than boxing? considering people have being punching people for ages, I'm pretty sure nothing is older than boxing. Refined natural punching and footwork would have been some of the first things people learned, along with wrestling.

Does anyone know why so many arts started using high kicks and flying kicks then? Kung fu, karate, taekwondo, hapkido, etc. genuinely curious.

People that believe that Ninjas have unique skills, that Chi is quantifiable while working like Dragonball Z, that the iron body techniques the traveling monks use are real feats, and Dillman Dim Mak is 100% legit. Oh and people that don't realize that chun techniques exist in other arts.
Funnier still when they type something like this:

considering people have being punching people for ages, I'm pretty sure nothing is older than boxing. Refined natural punching and footwork would have been some of the first things people learned, along with wrestling.